As in its Hachette dispute, Amazon resorts to holding back sales.

Further Reading

In a new contract dispute with Warner Home Video, Amazon is flexing its supply muscles and restricting preorders for upcoming releases like The Lego Movie and 300: Rise of an Empire, according to a report from The New York Times Wednesday. Despite those movies having featured placement in Amazon's search results, sales are uncharacteristically low for the highly anticipated releases on the site.

The restriction comes in the midst of another higher-profile conflict over e-book pricing with Hachette Book Group, where Amazon has stopped taking preorders and has dragged its feet on shipping Hachette products. Amazon wrote at the end of May that these contract disputes are normal, and customers who wanted Hachette products should buy from Amazon's third-party sellers or go elsewhere.

Amazon now appears to be in a similar situation with Warner, and customers are complaining in the site's forums that they cannot preorder the above movies, as well as titles like Winter's Tale, Transcendence, and Muppets: Most Wanted. The Times says that the lack of a Lego Movie pre-order might be the hardest blow to Warner's bottom line, as it's one of the biggest releases of the year so far.

With its DVD release date in less than a week on June 17, The Lego Movie is sitting at position 21,277 in the "Movies & TV" category of Amazon's Best Sellers rank. The movie is featured in the top ten results for Blu-ray movies under the "Kids & Family" category, but it's the only one that isn't available for preorder. It is, however, available for purchase as an Amazon Instant streaming video.

Neither Amazon nor Warner Home Video has made public statements about how long the standoff might last.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

Same here. I was on the fence about the whole thing with the whole Hachette thing. But that was because I thought it was a rare occurance where another company thought it could bully Amazon into doing something they didn't like.

But if this becomes a repeated offence I'll..probably still buy some stuff from Amazon because it's comfortable..but damnit I'll have a bad conscience about it!

More likely "our contract is up with Amazon, they've been selling things too cheap, put the screws to 'em"

-Some MBA at Warner Bros.

It's interesting that this kind of thing has been rarely done in retail, except for now. Normally, the content owner has had more power in a contract negotiation, because of the number of sellers vs the size of the content owner. But with Amazon selling such a large percentage of product, the power has shifted to them, and they are happy to use it.

With Hatchette, it's Amazon trying to pay them less. How do you know it's not the same thing here? Because you prefer to think this way?

More likely "our contract is up with Amazon, they've been selling things too cheap, put the screws to 'em"

-Some MBA at Warner Bros.

It's interesting that this kind of thing has been rarely done in retail, except for now. Normally, the content owner has had more power in a contract negotiation, because of the number of sellers vs the size of the content owner. But with Amazon selling such a large percentage of product, the power has shifted to them, and they are happy to use it.

With Hatchette, it's Amazon trying to pay them less. How do you know it's not the same thing here? Because you prefer to think this way?

So you're the one negotiating the contract?

All we know about the amazon situation so far is that Hatchette was found guilty of conspiring to fix the market along with Apple, Amazon just offers great service and prices.

Knowing what we know about the copyright cartel (it's run by borderline criminals) I'd say it's at least as likely that it's the cartels trying to screw Amazon as the other way around.

More likely "our contract is up with Amazon, they've been selling things too cheap, put the screws to 'em"

-Some MBA at Warner Bros.

while true Amazon is the one that stopped offering preordering for The LEGO Movie.

That's called using leverage. What did you want Amazon to do, just follow the line and raise prices on their streaming options because Warner wants more? I'm sure people would bitch and moan about that. Just like they did when Netflix raised prices because media companies wanted more, more more.

Color me naive but I don't think Amazon is going to become a Walmart - an evil corporation and disgusting place to shop.

Amazon is a services company, and the service the provide is NOT unique nor is there a monopoly. Warner Brothers is a 'Manufacturing' company in a sense, they make stuff. Movies and what not.And they are in a market where a handful of studios control the market so there is NO incentive for competition.

Here comes the Walmart & Amazon and WB comparison:

If you want to buy fresh groceries, you do NOT need to go to Walmart. Go Whole foods or Sprouts or whatever place you choose if you do not like the shitty way Walmart operates.

If you want to watch a A+ movie you CAN NOT choose anything, there are a few studios and all of them evil.

Where Amazon kicks in is with a stick waving at the big guys, BC we, the consumers cannot do that anymore.I am not afraid of Amazon being evil because I can easily replace them with little inconvenience.Amazon knows this.

Disputes between retailers and vendors happen every day. What is unusual here is not Amazon’s relentless desire to gain margin from its suppliers, but the suppliers’ growing resolve to hold the line. If other suppliers adopt the same attitude, that might have significant implications for Amazon’s pell-mell growth.

From the 10Q ending 3/31/2014 (see: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... portsother ) Amazon, Inc. had a net income of 108 Million, but cash and cash equivalents decreased by over 3.5 Billion. Revenue of about 8.5 Billion for the quarter, but net income of just 108 Million and one can see that Amazon, Inc. is desperate to increase their margins.

More likely "our contract is up with Amazon, they've been selling things too cheap, put the screws to 'em"

-Some MBA at Warner Bros.

It's interesting that this kind of thing has been rarely done in retail, except for now. Normally, the content owner has had more power in a contract negotiation, because of the number of sellers vs the size of the content owner. But with Amazon selling such a large percentage of product, the power has shifted to them, and they are happy to use it.

With Hatchette, it's Amazon trying to pay them less. How do you know it's not the same thing here? Because you prefer to think this way?

Common sense and experience from every media company negotiation with providers. Show me one time where a content owner has negotiated to keep things the same. Just one!

More likely "our contract is up with Amazon, they've been selling things too cheap, put the screws to 'em"

-Some MBA at Warner Bros.

while true Amazon is the one that stopped offering preordering for The LEGO Movie.

That's called using leverage. What did you want Amazon to do, just follow the line and raise prices on their streaming options because Warner wants more? I'm sure people would bitch and moan about that. Just like they did when Netflix raised prices because media companies wanted more, more more.

It's called screwing the customers who will go elsewhere and tell others to go elsewhere because they're caught in the middle of your little pissing match.

I see your point.

Amazon should definitely roll over and present their sphincter. It's the only rational move.

Guys. They still allow preordering for the physical media. Preordering for the digital rights makes no sense for the customer. They won't run out of streaming. So the whole pre-order a digital movie is just a trick to make people think they need to do it before it's too late.

When the movie comes out they can buy it just like everyone else and have it instantly. It's just bad for warner because many people lose interest a couple of weeks later. Or they spend their money on another movie they can preorder. The customer isn't getting screwed here. In fact, negotiating for a better price is good for the customer. And we don't have the leverage to do it ourselves.

I'm not sure what everyone's issue with Amazon is here. They always have the lowest prices. If they're in a dispute with WB, you can be reasonably sure that if they win the product will cost less than if they lose.

In any case, Amazon should be free to decide what products they sell and what products they dont sell. If you have a problem with it, buy it somewhere else. No need to get mad at them for running their business though.

Disputes between retailers and vendors happen every day. What is unusual here is not Amazon’s relentless desire to gain margin from its suppliers, but the suppliers’ growing resolve to hold the line. If other suppliers adopt the same attitude, that might have significant implications for Amazon’s pell-mell growth.

From the 10Q ending 3/31/2014 (see: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... portsother ) Amazon, Inc. had a net income of 108 Million, but cash and cash equivalents decreased by over 3.5 Billion. Revenue of about 8.5 Billion for the quarter, but net income of just 108 Million and one can see that Amazon, Inc. is desperate to increase their margins.

If by "desperate" you mean "under pressure from Wall Street", then yes they are.

What, the copyright cartel trying to extract more money out of everyone?

I said it in the Hachette article, and I'll say it again here: It worries me, not because of the IP cartel's behaviour (some of which has been especially noted for its stupidity), but because it shows that Amazon are an effectove monopoly in the online arena for new goods in this particular area. This is not good, in the long-term, for consumers.

What, the copyright cartel trying to extract more money out of everyone?

I said it in the Hachette article, and I'll say it again here: It worries me, not because of the IP cartel's behaviour (some of which has been especially noted for its stupidity), but because it shows that Amazon are an effectove monopoly in the online arena for new goods in this particular area. This is not good, in the long-term, for consumers.

while true Amazon is the one that stopped offering preordering for The LEGO Movie.

Which they are under no obligation to do.

If a store I frequent buys milk from one company and they sell it to me at a markup, and suddenly their supplier wants them to charge more, the store is under no obligation to buy that milk anymore. They can say "no thanks, we'll sell other milk".

As always, I suspect this is about money. If Amazon is refusing to sell pre-orders at a higher markup (thereby falsely inflating the cost of ownership to those who want the movie the most) than other stores have to sell at, then Amazon is protecting their reputation AND my interests.

What, the copyright cartel trying to extract more money out of everyone?

I said it in the Hachette article, and I'll say it again here: It worries me, not because of the IP cartel's behaviour (some of which has been especially noted for its stupidity), but because it shows that Amazon are an effectove monopoly in the online arena for new goods in this particular area. This is not good, in the long-term, for consumers.

As always, I suspect this is about money. If Amazon is refusing to sell pre-orders at a higher markup (thereby falsely inflating the cost of ownership to those who want the movie the most) than other stores have to sell at, then Amazon is protecting their reputation AND my interests.

Except of course where Amazon just doesn't sell the product and the only way to get it if you want it is to buy it at the higher markup. In which case, Amazon is out a sale and a customer and no one has proved anything. This isn't a case of "milk" it's a case of "Milk" - there is only one Milk where every cow produces milk.

actually if the customer goes elsewhere to buy it, then WB has proven that amazon is wrong.

Guys. They still allow preordering for the physical media. Preordering for the digital rights makes no sense for the customer. They won't run out of streaming. So the whole pre-order a digital movie is just a trick to make people think they need to do it before it's too late.

When the movie comes out they can buy it just like everyone else and have it instantly. It's just bad for warner because many people lose interest a couple of weeks later. Or they spend their money on another movie they can preorder. The customer isn't getting screwed here. In fact, negotiating for a better price is good for the customer. And we don't have the leverage to do it ourselves.

Have you been to amazon and looked at the listing for the lego movie? How do you preorder physical media when there is only a button to sign up to be notified when it's available and no button to order it? The digital version of the movie has been available for a week or two. You can buy it right now on amazon and from other companies. It's probably best to actually know what you're talking about before responding like this.

Amazon thinks pushing around a small publisher means it can shove around media giants. Amazon doesn't have Lego Movie? I'm sure Best Buy does, as does Barnes & Noble, MovieStop, Target, Walmart, and everyone else. Amazon is going to end up cutting off the wrong nose if it keeps this up.